Sunday, January 31, 2010

Reverend Jerry Coyne Thus Saith

At the First Church of Darwin, at the University of Chicago, Reverend Jerry Coyne preaches on evolution. Reverend Coyne's preaching is very much in the Darwinian wisdom literature tradition, explaining all manner of religious doctrines that, as evolutionists have explained many times, we all must accept. As a service, Reverend Coyne has gathered those theological dictates he has deemed most important to the Church of Darwin in his book Why Evolution is True. These truths need to be preached to all peoples, and so here we begin. Here is, then, the Word of Coyne:

Again one must ask: If animals were specially created, why would the creator produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike? [92:2]

Thus saith the Reverend Coyne. Here the Most High preaches on how the creator distributes his creations geographically across the face of the world.

It is the will of the Most High Coyne to correct false ideas and teachings that have spread throughout the land regarding this doctrine. As the Most High Coyne lovingly explains, with a gentle question rather than harsh dictate, it is false to think the creator specifically created each animal type, for the infinitely wise creator would never create, as we find, different animals that look and act alike on different continents.

Meditate on this teaching, and you will see that it takes but a moment's reflection to realize that evolution is obviously true.

42 comments:

Common Descent. We can show a consistent nested hierarchy across most taxa and traits, including morphology, genomics, embryonics, biogeography, the geological succession, extinct or extant. You might start with geological succession.

Just to make sure you understand the importance of the nested hierarchy, we can use it to make specific empirical predictions. For instance:

If you say you have an organism with mammary glands, we can reliably say it will have a complex eukaryote cell structure with organelles such as mitochondria, that it ingests other organisms for nourishment, has bilateral symmetry, integument, an alimentary canal, a bony head at one end with an array of sense organs, vertebrae protecting a nerve cord, ribs, jaw, four limbs during at least at some stage of life, neck, neocortex, endothermic, internal fertilization, four-chambered heart, lungs with alveoli and a muscular diaphragm, two eyes, three ear bones in each of two ears, hair or at least hair follicles at some stage of life, sebaceous glands, most probably will have heterodont dentition.

These are not trivial correlations, but among the most fundamental relationships in biology.

Cornelius: "Thus saith the Reverend Coyne. Here the Most High preaches on how the creator distributes his creations geographically across the face of the world."

I think all Coyne is doing is simply responding to the creationist claim that the world as we observe it was created in its entirety in a remarkably short period of time. Coyne is pointing out that if this was so, there are anomalies and incongruities in what we observe with the creationist story. If the creationist makes a claim that the Genesis account of creation is literally true, then why is it that what we observe in the natural world appears to contradict that account? These are actually pertinent and reasonable questions to ask.

If somebody makes a religious claim is it somehow of bounds not to probe and question those claims? Or should we simply not ask questions and just accept on face value the creation story of an anonymous author some 3000 or more years ago in a book that we don't even have any provenance for?

Cornelius,Is this a restatement of your previous claim that evolutonists use ID/creationist predictions ".. that no creationists or ID advocate would recognize"? (quotation might not be verbatim). if so, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide an ID/creationist prediction for the distribution of animals. given that you teach at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, it seems like you would be in a perfect position to explain what a prediction based, for example, on the Book of Genesis would be. I know Joe Felsenstein has previously requested such a prediction on sevral occasions, bu you have yet to do so.

======perhaps you would be kind enough to provide an ID/creationist prediction for the distribution of animals. given that you teach at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, it seems like you would be in a perfect position to explain what a prediction based, for example, on the Book of Genesis would be.======

I'm unaware of any such creationist prediction. Same for the Book of Genesis.

For ID, again, I would say that whereas evolution explains what we find as a consequence of historical contingency, ID says we will find reasons for what we find. These are two profoundly different approaches.

======I know Joe Felsenstein has previously requested such a prediction on sevral occasions, but you have yet to do so.======

"Coyne is not making a religious claim, he is responding to others who make a religious claim."

No, Rev. Coyne is not responding to a religious claim. The theory of special creation, which goes back centuries, says that God created the different species individually. Rev. Coyne is claiming that if God were to do that, then he would not produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike.

"... he is responding to others who make a religious claim."

No, no one has made this claim. Obviously contemporary creationists don't. But neither is this a tradition historically in pre Darwin thought.

"I'll ask again - can Coyne and others not respond to creationists without themselves being accused of making religious claims?"

Of course they can, but so what? From the 17th century to today, that's not what they are doing. You are attempting a creative rewrite of history and reinterpretation of evolutionary.

Cornelius,"ID says that we will find reasons for what we find." so what, specifically, are the reasons you might expect to find for the distribution on different continents of fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act similar? how would you go about looking for those reasons?

Cornelius: "No, no one has made this claim. Obviously contemporary creationists don't. But neither is this a tradition historically in pre Darwin thought."

Really? Seriously? Here's part of the mission statement from Ken's Ham's Answers in Genesis site:

"The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe."

I think AIG would be considered part of "contemporary creationists" wouldn't you?

"No, Rev. Coyne is not responding to a religious claim. The theory of special creation, which goes back centuries, says that God created the different species individually. Rev. Coyne is claiming that if God were to do that, then he would not produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike."

So are you saying that Coyne is responding to the theory of special creation, which is no longer in vogue. Sorry it's really hard to follow your train of thought!

(For what it's worth I can be sympathetic to some ID concepts - e.g., irreducible complexity, CSI etc. I think they are genuine and interesting arguments. But this whole schtick of yours with "religion drives science" etc just leaves me baffled, because it honestly makes absolutely no sense. And from what I can tell you are alone in the ID community in promoting this idea too...don't see many other ID proponents following your ideas...maybe that should tell you something?)

laugh out loud: And aren't there many exceptions to the pattern of distribution that evolutionists tell us we should expect? Does the pattern really hold?

Yes, there are exceptions, but it holds well enough that if you say you have an organism with mammary glands, we can reliably predict it doesn't have feathers, but does have three auditory ossicles. If you want, we can turn this around. If you find a jaw bone with heterodont dentition, we can predict that the mother nurses its young. Now think about that for a moment. We look at some teeth and can predict its maternal behavior.

=============Cornelius: "No, no one has made this claim. Obviously contemporary creationists don't. But neither is this a tradition historically in pre Darwin thought."

Really? Seriously? Here's part of the mission statement from Ken's Ham's Answers in Genesis site:

"The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth and the universe."==============

How is that relevant to the distribution of species on different continents?

============="No, Rev. Coyne is not responding to a religious claim. The theory of special creation, which goes back centuries, says that God created the different species individually. Rev. Coyne is claiming that if God were to do that, then he would not produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike."

So are you saying that Coyne is responding to the theory of special creation, which is no longer in vogue. Sorry it's really hard to follow your train of thought!=============

No, Rev. Coyne, is expressing the religious view in evolutionary thought that goes back to the beginning of modern science (or if you care, to antiquity). He is not *responding* to some competing theory of special creation (contemporary or historical). There is no competing theory that states that God would do what Rev. Coyne is explaining God wouldn't do.

All you need to do is read the statement. It is perfectly clear. If God created the species individually, then he would not produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike. If you're not following this, then just read the quote again. It is straightforward.

"... this whole schtick of yours with "religion drives science" etc just leaves me baffled, because it honestly makes absolutely no sense."

Cornelius,"So how do we know evolution is a fact?" Common descent, variation and natural selection are facts regardless of whether or not we contrast them with creationism/ID. That patterns of common descent occur(red) through a process of variation and selection is a robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses.

I was talking about biogeography, the disribution of organisms around the Earth. I do believe your response is a different issue, that of hierarchies. But that is also a religious arguement. Why would God create life as nested hierarchies when he didn't have to?

Out of curiosity Cornelius - I assume you still teach. What do you actually teach your students? It's frankly so frustrating to try and argue with you because your own position on matters is so completely hazy and fuzzy. You seem reluctant to really take any clear position on anything. But knowing a little about what you teach (do you have a curriculum?) may help those hear trying to engage with you. I assume you don't just get up in front of a class and bash evolution all day. But perhaps you do. Seems to be the only thing you want to talk about.

=========="So how do we know evolution is a fact?" Common descent, variation and natural selection are facts regardless of whether or not we contrast them with creationism/ID. That patterns of common descent occur(red) through a process of variation and selection is a robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses.==========

A "robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact. Here's a hint: the claim that evolution is a fact doesn't come from science. All you need do is read the evolution literature.

"I assume you don't just get up in front of a class and bash evolution all day. But perhaps you do. Seems to be the only thing you want to talk about."

It is incredible that evolutionists feel every right to make non scientific claims that make little sense, and when questioned they turn it back on the questioner, as if he's the one who is out of line. How is it that intelligent people like you can defend these silly claims? Rev. Coyne's book, and the evolution literature, have a plethora of religious claims such as this one. They go back to the 17th c., and have always been used to the proof texts for evolution. The science is full of holes, but the metaphysics is certain. Does this not bother you in the slightest?

"A "robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact."

But evolution is the only 'robust theory that provides testable hypotheses' on the table in biology. Just taken on that fact alone, it is not religious bias to examine biology in light of it.

What other possible theory would you like biologists to test and examine the evidence against?

Again, it feels like you are hinting at ID (or design theory/inference as I have heard it referred to on here). But ID fails as a scientific theory. It makes no predictaions and therefore we cannot examine any evidence in light of it.

So what scientific theory does that leave us? What other theory accounts for the diversity of life we see in nature? It would be strange of you to criticise biologists of 'religiously' favouring the theory of evolution if there was no other competing theory which they were, by extension, neglecting...

And your reply to CWest was particularly ironic. He (/she?) was asking you to plainly state what position you ARE advocating, since you seem to keep avoiding that question. And yet you avoid the question yet again in your reply to him! You just did exactly what he was criticising you for.

Instead of just having a go a evolution all the time, why not just clear up your own position and clarify what you positively DO advocate, and what you teach. Because to be honest I also seem to find you spending an awful lot more time telling us what you are NOT saying rather than what you ARE.

The 'theory' of evolution is a FAITH-based ideology. It's the height of hypocrisy to have evolutionists claim they don't want 'religion' taught in science classes, yet that's exactly what their teaching - THEIR religion.

Cornelius,""A robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact.. here's a hint: ..you need to read the evolution literature" here's hint: popular press books by Dawkins and COyne and are not "the evolution literature." and most working scientists understand that theories connect facts, but are not facts themselves. can you provide an example from the primary literat ure of someone saying that the theory of evolution (and not the various facts within the theory, like natural selection, common descent, etc) is a fact?

Cornelius Hunter: A "robust theory that provides numerous testable hypotheses" is not the same as a fact. Here's a hint: the claim that evolution is a fact doesn't come from science.

If you define "fact" as something beyond reasonable dispute, then evolution is a scientific fact, and should be accepted, like all scientific findings, provisionally. We can directly observe the mechanisms of evolution, and the evidence for historical transitions and divergences is overwhelming.

Cornelius Hunter: Thus saith the Reverend Coyne. Here the Most High preaches on how the creator distributes his creations geographically across the face of the world.

He said "if." That's is precisely how we examine a proposition in science. We assume the truth of a proposition in order to tease out its empirical implications.

Cornelius Hunter: The theory of special creation, which goes back centuries, says that God created the different species individually. Rev. Coyne is claiming that if God were to do that, then he would not produce on different continents fundamentally different animals that nevertheless look and act so much alike.

Coyne is saying it's an arbitrary explanation. God could have made Centaurs, too, but He so loved the nested hierarchy decided to make the biological world look just like descent with modification. Just as He made the movement of planets look like the inverse square law and hid the angels.

Darren,"please explain using evidence.. how life originated" The answer to this would be "we don't know", and almost any scientist would give you the same answer. there are numerous theories that have provided and tested hypotheses on abiogenesis. of these, the RNA world has the most experimental and theoretical evidence in favor of it. but while compelling it is far from complete and the answer to your question remains "we don't know."

Cornelis: "It is incredible that evolutionists feel every right to make non scientific claims that make little sense, and when questioned they turn it back on the questioner, as if he's the one who is out of line."

I was simply trying to get a better understand of your position. Understanding what you teach in the classroom could be helpful in understanding that. You have yet to make a compelling case for the "religion drives science" argument - furthermore, you seem rather alone in adopting this argument. Perhaps in time it will gain some traction, but judging by the other comments here, I don't think I'm alone in saying that it really makes no sense. Other the already-faithful (probably mostly born-again Christians), I suspect you haven't had much success in changing peoples minds with this approach. Yet I have to admire your tenancity!

You don't know what is. "Evolution" is the study of differential success among replicators. Prior to the emergence of such replicators, by whatever process you credit, there is no evolution. This is not a statement of faith, but a logical tautology: there is no differential success among replicators before there are replicators. The fact that you think this is a "faith based" position demonstrates the fruit of Dr. Hunter's bizarre approach to science: ignorance and confusion.

Learned Hand hit the nail right on the head. You simply do not understand the theory of evolution. The quote you cited from my post is not a statement of faith in the slightest! It is a statement of the perameters of the theory of evolution!

ok. the fact that there is a self replicating organism floating around in primordial soup is based on FAITH. There is no question about that. I understand your position perfectly. Do not turn this into a "We are the intellects, and you are not" , "you dont understand our theory" debate.....because I perfectly do. Perhaps it is that you are blind that your Theory is completely based on FAITH.

No, even many evolutionists finally admit that the mechanisms of adaptation do not accumulate to the change evolution needs. So now evolutionists are appealing speculatively to all kinds of mechanisms, though not sure how it would work.

"ok. the fact that there is a self replicating organism floating around in primordial soup is based on FAITH."

It is not. It is not an assumption that we begin with. It is a conclusion! A conclusion we arrive at by extrapolating backwards.

Your thinking about evolution is back to front. We do not just assume the first replicating cell and then work forwards chronologically from there. We begin with what we can observe in nature here and now and work backwards.

"I understand your position perfectly. Do not turn this into a "We are the intellects, and you are not" , "you dont understand our theory" debate.....because I perfectly do."

With all due respect, but if you did not understand it properly then you wouldn't necessarily be aware of that fact, would you?

"Perhaps it is that you are blind that your Theory is completely based on FAITH."

When a theory is based on facts and evidence, how can we be 'unaware' that it isn't built on facts and evidence at all, but on faith...?

Cornelius Hunter: No, even many evolutionists finally admit that the mechanisms of adaptation do not accumulate to the change evolution needs. So now evolutionists are appealing speculatively to all kinds of mechanisms, though not sure how it would work.

Adaptation is not the only mechanism of evolutionary change.

We can show that natural variation and selection can account for complex adaptation, but that doesn't begin to tell the whole story. In order to tell the story, we need to establish the broad outlines of life's history, that is, Common Descent.

Darren: ok. the fact that there is a self replicating organism floating around in primordial soup is based on FAITH.

Huh? There are "self replicating organisms floating around" the world today. We have good reason to believe that life has a very ancient history on Earth. During the early part of that history, there were no multicellular organisms.

But ID also predicts that organisms would look like they were designed, and they certainly do. And it could be argued that the fossil record shows so few transtional species, and even those that we have are questionable, e.g. archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, that the overall pattern of the fossil record is not what we would predict from common descent. Y'know, punctuated equilibrium, the incompleteness of the fossil record. All those apologetics for the rareness of transitions.

laugh out loud: But ID also predicts that organisms would look like they were designed, and they certainly do.

'Looks like they were designed' is not a clear empirical prediction. Even then, it's not uniquely entailed.

laugh out loud: Y'know, punctuated equilibrium, ...

Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't contradict Common Descent, but depends upon it.

laugh out loud: And it could be argued that the fossil record shows so few transtional species, and even those that we have are questionable, e.g. archaeopteryx, tiktaalik, that the overall pattern of the fossil record is not what we would predict from common descent.

Common Descent predicts the nested hierarchy, and that's what we observe for organisms, extinct and extant.

As for the geological succession, Land vertebrates didn't always exist. They were predated by aquatic vertebrates. Mammals didn't always exist. They were predated by reptiles. We can trace the line of descent from primitive chordates to vertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to primates through hominids to modern humans.

More important is the nested hierarchy. Even without fossils, which represent only a tiny proportion of extinct organisms, we have exceedingly strong evidence of Common Descent as it applies to most taxa.

Reading this topic, the following remarks by Sir Fred Hoyle come to mind...again..."Because the old believers said that God came out of the sky, thereby connecting the Earth with events outside it, the new believers were obliged to say the opposite and to do so, as always, with intense conviction. Although the new believers had not a particle of evidence to support their statements on the matter, they asserted that the rabbit producing sludge (called soup to make it sound more palatable) was terrestrially located and that all chemical and biochemical transmogrifications of the sludge were terrestrially inspired. Because there was not a particle of evidence to support this view, new believers had to swallow it as an article of faith, otherwise they could not pass their examinations or secure a job or avoid the ridicule of their colleagues. So it came about from 1860 onward that new believers became in a sense mentally ill, or, more precisely, either you became mentally ill or you quitted the subject of biology, as I had done in my early teens. The trouble for young biologists was that, with everyone around them ill, it became impossible for them to think they were well unless they were ill, which again is a situation you can read all about in the columns of Nature [magazine]." (Hoyle, F., "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.3-4).Its remarkable because Darwinists seem to insist on revealing how much they don't know and can't grasp.